Thank brother. I am being edified more in the Word, with these videos. May God bless you and those that read this richly, in the name of Jesus Christ. Peace
The Western approach to reading scriptures, going back go the reformers, involves historical grammatical exegesis, examining the Bible linearly with consideration of context. However, as you correctly point out, the New Testament writers beyond historical grammatical interpretation. The way I see it, whilst symbolism, allegory, and typology are important, caution is advised so that they are not used as the sole foundations for any new doctrine. Instead, they should be used to illuminate or clarify what is plainly stated elsewhere. The deeper spiritual meaning should not nullify the plain intent of the text, or else we risk mysticism or Gnosticism. Put simply, the spiritual meaning should compliment the plain reading.
You have said it perfectly. This approach is not to justify novel doctrines, but to show the consistent Spirit of God and His foreknowledge for the sake of edification.
Also, both extremes can result in pitfalls and dangers; as Origen states, adhering so closely to the letter to the point you neglect the spirit of the Law you reduce the entire thing to "absurd Jewish fables."
this has been a great watch thank you for the work you do. I would like to perhaps recommend a work that has decieved many that is right up your alley! a presbyterian by the name of timothy kauffman published a series of blogs trying to prove that the earliest fathers didn't belive in baptismal regneration. Perhaps you guys could give your two sense and address his readings of the fathers that you guys often talk about such as justin martyr, tertullian, ireaneus, and the writings within the shepard of hermas. God bless.
I don't like the term baptismal generation. Keep in mind, while baptism does save us, it does not work the Roman Catholic way. That's not to say the early church wasn't Catholic BUT they demanded more than baptism.
@clintonjameshuddleston-apo9385 Obviously there's more to salvation than only baptism, but there's no reason to take issue with the word "regenerated." The Church fathers commonly used the equivalent in Greek as I'm sure you've read before. It can't be denied that Baptism regenerates a person.
The early church had no problem understand it. They knew that the OT dietary laws are NOT binding. Nor are there NT reasons to kill or to divorce/remarry.
I'm not sure I'm following what you are saying. In the early church no one cared if you ate pork, but they would definitely care if you murdered or committed adultery. They would excommunicate a person for murder and adultery.
Very interesting. New to your channel, first video I saw. I don't do too many videos but I do videos exposing The Seventh-Day Adventist Church in a few other things. And basically lean towards polycarp and polycrates as being closer to the original Faith then other Church fathers
The Original Covenant is for REAL, some lessons are symbolic but not ALL 😤 You need to learn Hebrew and stop your idolatry. No man can “Save” you. Buy Rabbi Tovia Singer’s 2 volumes of, “Let’s Get Biblical,” and LEARN The TRUTH, through the eyes of HEBREW 💪🏻🫶🏻👍🏻
Woman, why would I bother learning Hebrew when I already know that you wicked people have corrupted the Hebrew texts. Your "Masoretic," in which you changed the genealogies from Adam to Noah to support your ridiculous theory that Melchizedek is Shem, is shameful and your people will be punished for it as long as you don't renounce it. I'm content with learning Greek! As the Septuagint is proven to be far more reliable not only by the New Testament, but by your own early writers such as Philo and Josephus (who confirm the true genealogies found in the Septuagint). You people demean Moses. You can't handle his brilliance so you throw a veil over him, we don't. You taste the bitter waters of Marah, but we Christians submerge the tree, the cross, into the waters to make them sweet.
Madam, if we lived “literally” we wouldn’t understand nor appreciate the gift of Gods plan. If God said the dead are sleeping, it doesn’t mean we can just tap on bones and see if they can get up and yawn, it means they are resting/burning in the afterlife. We are to LIVE like proverbs, to live wisely and justly. When Jesus died for 3 days and rose on the third day. We don’t go on our merry way (which unfortunately lukewarmness is an issue). We are to be mindful and dutiful to worship the Perfect and Final Divine Lamb of Gods sacrifice. Living by his teachings.
@shirleyannelindberg1692 Rabbi Tovia Singer has a habit of twisting arguments. I used to fall for him before I realised just how incorrect he was about Isaiah 53 being recognised as Messianic by Jews from before the time of Christ up even to the time including Maimonides, including the use of Daniel to pinpoint the arrival of the Messiah during the fourth kingdom from Daniel (Roman) during the first half of the first century (458 BC -> 27 AD). Look up Dr. Michael Brown’s work on Jewish objections, you will find that this is a lot more solidly rooted in the Old Testament than you might first think. I used to be almost swayed by him before I learned the truth about Yeshua and how He fulfilled the Torah that prophesied about Him. I pray that you may one day find that truth as well.
@shirleyannelindberg1692 Also, Jeremiah does prophecy about a new covenant to come, which rabbinic writings in the first century stated would come with the Messiah.
@samueljennings4809 I used to watch Michael Brown's stuff back in the day, I enjoyed his Jewish Objections series too. I'd recommend to you, Samuel, both Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho and Tertullian’s An Answer to the Jews. It's amazing how many of their arguments have remained the same for 2,000 years - like arguing that the Hebrew doesn't mean virgin but only "young woman." Tertullian and Justin Martyr both have the best reply to this argument, aside from diving into the mud with them to wrestle over the meaning of the Hebrew word, they merely point out that there is nothing at all notable of being born of a young woman and that such a thing is not miraculous at all.
Close, but no cigar. How convenient you skim over the the fact Clement was a pope, or perhaps when you’re quoting St. Cyprian, mention what he thought of those who rejected the Papacy, in his work, The Unity of the Catholic Church. Or perhaps I’ll quote it for you: And what can be more crafty, or what more subtle, than for this enemy, detected and cast down by the advent of Christ, after light has come to the nations, and saving rays have shone for the preservation of men, that the deaf might receive the hearing of spiritual grace, the blind might open their eyes to God, the weak might grow strong again with eternal health, the lame might run to the church, the dumb might pray with clear voices and prayers- seeing his idols forsaken, and his lanes and his temples deserted by the numerous concourse of believers- to devise a new fraud, and under the very title of the Christian name to deceive the incautious? He has invented heresies and schisms, whereby he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity. Those whom he cannot keep in the darkness of the old way, he circumvents and deceives by the error of a new way. He snatches men from the Church itself; and while they seem to themselves to have already approached to the light, and to have escaped the night of the world, he pours over them again, in their unconsciousness, new darkness; so that, although they do not stand firm with the Gospel of Christ, and with the observation and law of Christ, they still call themselves Christians, and, walking in darkness, they think that they have the light, while the adversary is flattering and deceiving, who, according to the apostle's word, transforms himself into an angel of light, and equips his ministers as if they were the ministers of righteousness, who maintain night instead of day, death for salvation, despair under the offer of hope, perfidy under the pretext of faith, antichrist under the name of Christ; so that, while they feign things like the truth, they make void the truth by their subtlety. This happens, beloved brethren, so long as we do not return to the source of truth, as we do not seek the head nor keep the teaching of the heavenly Master. 4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church
What are you going on about? I never brought up Clement of Rome in this video, I was talking about Clement of Alexandria - a completely DIFFERENT person. Pay attention!
@@ante-nicenechristianity In that case, I’m glad you admit Clement of Rome (first century and arguably mentioned in the Bible as having his name written in the book of life) was a Pope.
You should read more of Cyprian's works though, you don't even seem familiar with the fact that Catholics denounce Cyprian. You forget that Cyprian held a council against Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, on the Baptism of Heretics where he states, "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another." I'm not a Protestant. You are really the Protestant for rejecting the practice of the universal Church which was held for hundreds of years. You've embraced novel ideas about the Bishop of Rome.
@@ante-nicenechristianity chat gpt says: Analyzing the text of the Seventh Council of Carthage convened by Cyprian, a few key points emerge relevant to the Catholic perspective on Cyprian's stance regarding papal authority: 1. **Context of the Council**: The council was convened by Cyprian in response to Pope Stephen's letters condemning the African Council's decrees on the baptism of heretics. This shows Cyprian's willingness to engage in theological debate and assert his views, even when they differed from the Pope's. 2. **Cyprian's Position**: Cyprian argued that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the Church's baptism. This stance was contrary to Pope Stephen's ruling that baptism by heretics was valid if done in the correct form. 3. **Cyprian's Respect for Episcopal Autonomy**: Cyprian's statement, "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops," reflects his belief in the autonomy of bishops in their local dioceses. However, this does not necessarily imply a rejection of papal authority but emphasizes the governance structure he supported within the Church. 4. **Overall Stance on Papal Authority**: Despite his disagreements with Pope Stephen on this particular issue, Cyprian's actions and other writings indicate a general respect for and recognition of papal authority. His disagreement was focused on the content of a specific ruling rather than the legitimacy of the Pope's authority to make such rulings. In summary, while Cyprian held independent views on certain theological matters and advocated for the autonomy of bishops, his overall stance did not outright reject papal authority. His actions, especially in seeking dialogue and clarification from Rome, suggest a recognition of the Pope's role, even in the midst of theological disagreements.
@@ante-nicenechristianity you chopped off the context in your quote which clearly shows he isn’t denying the existence of of a bishop of bishops (the pope) but saying they don’t claim for themselves this authority as they are below the pope. It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,[3] Chat gpt however read the whole document and correctly pointed out the context and your deceptive out of context quote. In other words by saying “us” he is referring to the bishops in his council which do not dare to proclaim for themselves such authority as the pope has.
Thank brother. I am being edified more in the Word, with these videos. May God bless you and those that read this richly, in the name of Jesus Christ. Peace
I am thankful you have given me a good work to do, thank you for commenting, God bless you.
The Western approach to reading scriptures, going back go the reformers, involves historical grammatical exegesis, examining the Bible linearly with consideration of context. However, as you correctly point out, the New Testament writers beyond historical grammatical interpretation. The way I see it, whilst symbolism, allegory, and typology are important, caution is advised so that they are not used as the sole foundations for any new doctrine. Instead, they should be used to illuminate or clarify what is plainly stated elsewhere. The deeper spiritual meaning should not nullify the plain intent of the text, or else we risk mysticism or Gnosticism. Put simply, the spiritual meaning should compliment the plain reading.
You have said it perfectly. This approach is not to justify novel doctrines, but to show the consistent Spirit of God and His foreknowledge for the sake of edification.
Also, both extremes can result in pitfalls and dangers; as Origen states, adhering so closely to the letter to the point you neglect the spirit of the Law you reduce the entire thing to "absurd Jewish fables."
@@ante-nicenechristianityamen
@@ante-nicenechristianity Thank you!
this has been a great watch thank you for the work you do. I would like to perhaps recommend a work that has decieved many that is right up your alley! a presbyterian by the name of timothy kauffman published a series of blogs trying to prove that the earliest fathers didn't belive in baptismal regneration. Perhaps you guys could give your two sense and address his readings of the fathers that you guys often talk about such as justin martyr, tertullian, ireaneus, and the writings within the shepard of hermas. God bless.
That's very absurd, we will be sure to take a look at it. Thank you for the comment.
I don't like the term baptismal generation. Keep in mind, while baptism does save us, it does not work the Roman Catholic way. That's not to say the early church wasn't Catholic BUT they demanded more than baptism.
@clintonjameshuddleston-apo9385 Obviously there's more to salvation than only baptism, but there's no reason to take issue with the word "regenerated." The Church fathers commonly used the equivalent in Greek as I'm sure you've read before. It can't be denied that Baptism regenerates a person.
@@ante-nicenechristianity Baptism with obedience does. I agree.
@@ante-nicenechristianity amen
The early church had no problem understand it. They knew that the OT dietary laws are NOT binding. Nor are there NT reasons to kill or to divorce/remarry.
I'm not sure I'm following what you are saying. In the early church no one cared if you ate pork, but they would definitely care if you murdered or committed adultery. They would excommunicate a person for murder and adultery.
@@ante-nicenechristianity Then we agree. I apologize in case of my English being very meh
@@omegatafkal No worries, thank you for your comment.
Whom of you three narrates this one?
@AlphaStudios-lh1rz It was myself (Nolan). It was a subject that was particularly important to me and I thought worth addressing.
Very interesting. New to your channel, first video I saw.
I don't do too many videos but I do videos exposing The Seventh-Day Adventist Church in a few other things. And basically lean towards polycarp and polycrates as being closer to the original Faith then other Church fathers
Prophetic typologies were heavily used by the Lord and the apostles. Revelation is the densest use of the old Testament in many ways
Origen once said that Christ and Paul taught that not one iota from the Old Testament is void of mysteries.
The Original Covenant is for REAL, some lessons are symbolic but not ALL 😤
You need to learn Hebrew and stop your idolatry.
No man can “Save” you.
Buy Rabbi Tovia Singer’s 2 volumes of,
“Let’s Get Biblical,” and LEARN The TRUTH, through the eyes of HEBREW 💪🏻🫶🏻👍🏻
Woman, why would I bother learning Hebrew when I already know that you wicked people have corrupted the Hebrew texts. Your "Masoretic," in which you changed the genealogies from Adam to Noah to support your ridiculous theory that Melchizedek is Shem, is shameful and your people will be punished for it as long as you don't renounce it. I'm content with learning Greek! As the Septuagint is proven to be far more reliable not only by the New Testament, but by your own early writers such as Philo and Josephus (who confirm the true genealogies found in the Septuagint).
You people demean Moses. You can't handle his brilliance so you throw a veil over him, we don't. You taste the bitter waters of Marah, but we Christians submerge the tree, the cross, into the waters to make them sweet.
Madam, if we lived “literally” we wouldn’t understand nor appreciate the gift of Gods plan. If God said the dead are sleeping, it doesn’t mean we can just tap on bones and see if they can get up and yawn, it means they are resting/burning in the afterlife. We are to LIVE like proverbs, to live wisely and justly. When Jesus died for 3 days and rose on the third day. We don’t go on our merry way (which unfortunately lukewarmness is an issue). We are to be mindful and dutiful to worship the Perfect and Final Divine Lamb of Gods sacrifice. Living by his teachings.
@shirleyannelindberg1692 Rabbi Tovia Singer has a habit of twisting arguments. I used to fall for him before I realised just how incorrect he was about Isaiah 53 being recognised as Messianic by Jews from before the time of Christ up even to the time including Maimonides, including the use of Daniel to pinpoint the arrival of the Messiah during the fourth kingdom from Daniel (Roman) during the first half of the first century (458 BC -> 27 AD).
Look up Dr. Michael Brown’s work on Jewish objections, you will find that this is a lot more solidly rooted in the Old Testament than you might first think.
I used to be almost swayed by him before I learned the truth about Yeshua and how He fulfilled the Torah that prophesied about Him. I pray that you may one day find that truth as well.
@shirleyannelindberg1692
Also, Jeremiah does prophecy about a new covenant to come, which rabbinic writings in the first century stated would come with the Messiah.
@samueljennings4809 I used to watch Michael Brown's stuff back in the day, I enjoyed his Jewish Objections series too. I'd recommend to you, Samuel, both Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho and Tertullian’s An Answer to the Jews. It's amazing how many of their arguments have remained the same for 2,000 years - like arguing that the Hebrew doesn't mean virgin but only "young woman." Tertullian and Justin Martyr both have the best reply to this argument, aside from diving into the mud with them to wrestle over the meaning of the Hebrew word, they merely point out that there is nothing at all notable of being born of a young woman and that such a thing is not miraculous at all.
Close, but no cigar. How convenient you skim over the the fact Clement was a pope, or perhaps when you’re quoting St. Cyprian, mention what he thought of those who rejected the Papacy, in his work, The Unity of the Catholic Church. Or perhaps I’ll quote it for you:
And what can be more crafty, or what more subtle, than for this enemy, detected and cast down by the advent of Christ, after light has come to the nations, and saving rays have shone for the preservation of men, that the deaf might receive the hearing of spiritual grace, the blind might open their eyes to God, the weak might grow strong again with eternal health, the lame might run to the church, the dumb might pray with clear voices and prayers- seeing his idols forsaken, and his lanes and his temples deserted by the numerous concourse of believers- to devise a new fraud, and under the very title of the Christian name to deceive the incautious? He has invented heresies and schisms, whereby he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity. Those whom he cannot keep in the darkness of the old way, he circumvents and deceives by the error of a new way. He snatches men from the Church itself; and while they seem to themselves to have already approached to the light, and to have escaped the night of the world, he pours over them again, in their unconsciousness, new darkness; so that, although they do not stand firm with the Gospel of Christ, and with the observation and law of Christ, they still call themselves Christians, and, walking in darkness, they think that they have the light, while the adversary is flattering and deceiving, who, according to the apostle's word, transforms himself into an angel of light, and equips his ministers as if they were the ministers of righteousness, who maintain night instead of day, death for salvation, despair under the offer of hope, perfidy under the pretext of faith, antichrist under the name of Christ; so that, while they feign things like the truth, they make void the truth by their subtlety. This happens, beloved brethren, so long as we do not return to the source of truth, as we do not seek the head nor keep the teaching of the heavenly Master.
4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church
What are you going on about? I never brought up Clement of Rome in this video, I was talking about Clement of Alexandria - a completely DIFFERENT person. Pay attention!
@@ante-nicenechristianity In that case, I’m glad you admit Clement of Rome (first century and arguably mentioned in the Bible as having his name written in the book of life) was a Pope.
You should read more of Cyprian's works though, you don't even seem familiar with the fact that Catholics denounce Cyprian. You forget that Cyprian held a council against Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, on the Baptism of Heretics where he states, "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another."
I'm not a Protestant. You are really the Protestant for rejecting the practice of the universal Church which was held for hundreds of years. You've embraced novel ideas about the Bishop of Rome.
@@ante-nicenechristianity chat gpt says: Analyzing the text of the Seventh Council of Carthage convened by Cyprian, a few key points emerge relevant to the Catholic perspective on Cyprian's stance regarding papal authority:
1. **Context of the Council**: The council was convened by Cyprian in response to Pope Stephen's letters condemning the African Council's decrees on the baptism of heretics. This shows Cyprian's willingness to engage in theological debate and assert his views, even when they differed from the Pope's.
2. **Cyprian's Position**: Cyprian argued that heretics who come to the Church must be baptized and sanctified by the Church's baptism. This stance was contrary to Pope Stephen's ruling that baptism by heretics was valid if done in the correct form.
3. **Cyprian's Respect for Episcopal Autonomy**: Cyprian's statement, "For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops," reflects his belief in the autonomy of bishops in their local dioceses. However, this does not necessarily imply a rejection of papal authority but emphasizes the governance structure he supported within the Church.
4. **Overall Stance on Papal Authority**: Despite his disagreements with Pope Stephen on this particular issue, Cyprian's actions and other writings indicate a general respect for and recognition of papal authority. His disagreement was focused on the content of a specific ruling rather than the legitimacy of the Pope's authority to make such rulings.
In summary, while Cyprian held independent views on certain theological matters and advocated for the autonomy of bishops, his overall stance did not outright reject papal authority. His actions, especially in seeking dialogue and clarification from Rome, suggest a recognition of the Pope's role, even in the midst of theological disagreements.
@@ante-nicenechristianity you chopped off the context in your quote which clearly shows he isn’t denying the existence of of a bishop of bishops (the pope) but saying they don’t claim for themselves this authority as they are below the pope.
It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,[3]
Chat gpt however read the whole document and correctly pointed out the context and your deceptive out of context quote.
In other words by saying “us” he is referring to the bishops in his council which do not dare to proclaim for themselves such authority as the pope has.